How Trump Stole Christmas—And Why Evangelicals Rally to Their Savior

Samuel L. Perry
Mon, December 20, 2021

TrumpChurch-8
A Dallas Police Mounted Unit stand outside of the old First Dallas Baptist church as Trump supporters and members wait in line for Sunday morning service with former President Donald Trump, on Sunday, Dec. 19, 2021 in downtown Dallas. 

Credit - Ben Torres

Before Donald Trump had spoken a word Sunday, Dec. 19, at First Baptist Dallas it would’ve been understandable if those in attendance had trouble remembering the “reason for the season.” Jesus was celebrated, yes. But the entire Christmas service was built around Trump’s advent: lines wrapped around the building starting 3 hours before the event; security screening for everyone in the main sanctuary; Trump’s smiling face on every program. The former President was introduced or acknowledged four separate times during the service, each one to thunderous applause.

Senior Pastor Robert Jeffress, frequent Fox News guest and longtime Trump advocate, gushed with adulation for his “good friend,” a friendship he proudly counted as “one of the greatest privileges of my life.” He twice called President Trump “the most pro-life, pro-religious liberty, pro-Israel President in the history of our great country” and dubbed him “the most consequential President since Abraham Lincoln.” Trump even found his way into Jeffress’s sermon as an analogy for God himself. When Jeffress wanted to illustrate what it meant for God to pardon sin through Christ, he recalled Trump pardoning Alice Johnson in the Oval Office.

And finally, there was in Jeffress’s own words, “the climax of the service,” Trump’s “Christmas Greeting” that turned into a MAGA rally. The delivery and content were classic Trump, alternating between off-the-cuff rambling about the nation’s dystopic situation and remarks about Christmas that he confessed were written for him. He concluded with his signature “Make America Great Again” sign off and even began a chant for “USA! USA!”

A program from the What If There Were No Chrismas?

 event on Sunday December 19, 2021.Courtesy Samuel Perry

Attending the event in person allowed me to appreciate how central Trump remains to white evangelicalism. Not just for Robert Jeffress, Trump’s most loyal “court evangelical.” Not just for First Baptist Dallas, the church that once wrote and performed a hymn for Trump entitled “Make America Great Again.” In fact, it would be a mistake for readers to roll their eyes at an event like this and dismiss it as “wacky” or “fringe.” On the contrary, what I observed in person Sunday morning, as well as what we can see from national survey data, make clear how Trump has conformed white evangelicalism to his own image, and why so many evangelicals await his second advent.

Standing in line 2.5 hours before the event, I chatted with a group of five elderly women who all came together. All were committed churchgoers in the Dallas area, but none were members at First Baptist. They simply came to see Trump. And they were planning to all get tickets for the event with Bill O’Reilly at the American Airlines Center later that afternoon where Trump would also be speaking.

There was Bill, a repairman who had taken public transportation to get to First Baptist. He was not a member either, but had always been a huge fan of Trump and was eager to see him in person. He is unvaccinated because he didn’t trust the science, heard the vaccines caused blood clots, and read somewhere the Omicron variant wasn’t that bad anyway. He was also convinced the election was stolen and said he would vote for Trump again in 2024.

And there was Carlos. Like Bill, Carlos was visiting First Baptist from elsewhere in the city along with a friend. And also like Bill, Carlos was certain the election had been stolen from Trump. But Carlos didn’t think Americans should wait for the 2024 election. Speaking to his friend loud enough for all to hear, Carlos explained “Trump should be reinstated and made President for life. Because he should be for life.”

Trump’s appeal Sunday morning extends far beyond the First Baptist faithful. Evangelical visitors from around the city had come to cheer for their President. They were convinced he’d been treated unfairly. And they pined to see him back in office.

National data show us this is not a fringe view among white evangelicals. In survey data my colleagues and I collected in August 2021 and are currently analyzing, over two-thirds of white evangelicals felt the 2020 election had been stolen from Trump. And 63% believe the liberal media wildly exaggerated the threat of COVID-19 to damage Trump’s chances at re-election. Nor do white evangelicals blame Trump for the attempted insurrection at the Capitol Building on January 6th. As of August 2021, a full 70% disagree that Trump held any responsibility for the event.

For the vast majority of white evangelicals in the U.S., like those visiting First Baptist Dallas on Sunday, Trump is still their warrior. And his promises are still the same as those he made as a candidate in 2016: that he would fight for Christians like them.

Former President Donald Trump enters a loading dock entrance riding in the back seat of a secret service armored SUV for morning church services at First Baptist Dallas, on Sunday, Dec. 19, 2021 in downtown Dallas.

Introducing the former President, Jeffress recounted what initially attracted him to Trump as a candidate in 2015 was that Trump passionately defended the Christmas holiday and promised to make it politically correct to say “Merry Christmas” again. The narrative of a politically correct “war on Christmas” is a farcical right-wing trope that goes back decades, but Trump was able to leverage this narrative to present himself as a candidate who would fight for Christian culture.\

That’s how he presented himself on Sunday. Recalling how Jeffress first described him to others, Trump paraphrased Jeffress: “[Trump] may not know the Bible as well as all of us, but he loves God, he loves Jesus, and he’s a leader, and he’s going to lead us into great things, in helping and saving Christianity.”

What did he mean by “saving Christianity”? He means rescuing Christianity’s influence, and more specifically the cultural and political influence of white conservative Christians. Trump’s appeal to white evangelicals at First Baptist church and around the country is primarily the result of what we call “Christian nationalism,” the belief that America has been and should always be for “Christians like us.” Trump reassured listeners Sunday of the centrality of Christianity to America’s story and his commitment to defend that centrality.

Reading his remarks, Trump exclaimed, “It’s impossible to think of the life of our own country without the influence of [Jesus’] example and of his teachings. Our miraculous founding, overcoming civil war, abolishing slavery, defeating communism and fascism, reaching boundless heights of science and discovering so many incredible things…And the United States ultimately becoming a truly great nation and we’re gonna keep it that way. We’re not going to let it go.”

That is the promise of MAGA. It’s the reason the vast majority of white evangelicals elevate Trump and what his possible return as President means for the future of the country.

As Trump slowly walked off stage, he began a chant of “USA! USA!” throughout the First Baptist audience. What viewers online could not hear was the small group of attendees next to me in the back of the sanctuary who changed the chant into, “We love you! We love you! We love you!” They weren’t chanting to Jesus. They were chanting to their savior.

The suspicious disappearance and return of Peng Shuai is straight out of China's playbook for forcing rogue celebrities into submission

Bill Bostock

Mon, December 20, 2021

From left to right: Alibaba founder Jack Ma, the tennis player Peng Shuai, and the actor Fan Bingbing.Clive Brunskill/Costfoto/Barcroft Media/CG/VCG via Getty Images

• Peng Shuai vanished then changed her story after accusing a former Chinese official of sexual assault.

• It's common for China's elites to disappear after displeasing or criticizing the government.

• This ruthlessness shows that in China, no one is above the law or — more importantly — the Communist Party.

The tennis star Peng Shuai, "X-Men" actress Fan Bingbing, and Alibaba founder Jack Ma were darlings of the Chinese state, symbols that Beijing's reach extended to Hollywood and Wall Street.

What the trio also have in common is that they vanished without notice after defying Beijing or embarrassing the nation.

This tactic — which comes alongside a mass, unopposed crackdown on lawyers, activists, and state critics — appears to be Beijing's go-to strategy to tackle disloyalty and prevent rebellion.

Fan vanished for three months in 2018 following revelations that she dodged millions of dollars in tax, only to return with a grovelling apology. Ma vanished for the same period in late 2020 after he criticized China's reluctance to innovate, coming back to say he had been "studying and thinking."

Peng, meanwhile, disappeared from public view for weeks after she accused the former vice premier Zhang Gaoli of sexually assaulting her on November 2.

After a long silence, Chinese state media outlets published footage of Peng making public appearances to indicate she was safe,

On Sunday, Peng gave her first interview to foreign media since she vanished — one in which she denied ever accusing anyone of sexual assault.

"I have never said that anyone has sexually assaulted me. This point must be emphasized clearly," Peng told Lianhe Zaobao, a Chinese-language newspaper in Singapore. It appeared to complete her cycle of punishment.

Peng Shuai at the Wuhan Open tennis tournament in 2019.Getty/Wang He

These cases, and many others like it, follow the same arc: A high-profile individual brings China into disrepute, then vanishes. They then either reemerge to repent or never return.

"They keep these people and they try to find some sort of arrangement," Konstantinos Tsimonis, a lecturer in Chinese society at the Lau China Institute at King's College London, told Insider after Peng first disappeared.

"I think that's what we had with Jack Ma and I think that's what we're going to get with Peng Shuai," he said, adding that the Chinese government is likely thinking: "We want to make sure you don't talk anymore, so we don't have a reemergence of the #MeToo movement in the public sphere."

Tsimonis also cited the 2011 disappearance of the dissident artist Ai Weiwei, who was detained for 81 days without charge.

"They made up some charges. The message was clear, and they only let him go when he agreed to stop talking," Tsimonis said. "This [trend] is worrying." (Ai left China in 2015 and has since openly criticized the Chinese government.)

Ai Weiwei waves from the entrance of his studio after being released on bail in Beijing.David Gray/Reuters

'This is the norm, not the exception'

China can get away with doing this to celebrities, and countless others, thanks to the vagaries of its legal system, and its power to suppress information on the internet.

"Proximity to the top levels of power — fame, money, power, a Nobel peace prize — do not buy you any added protection," Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, told Insider last month.

"This case has laid bare for yet another large global audience the truly arbitrary nature of power the Chinese government and party wield," she said, referring to Peng. "This happens all the time, this is the norm, not the exception."

Then-Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli, whom Peng accused of sexual assault, photographed in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in August 2017.Bandar Algaloud/Courtesy of Saudi Royal Court/Handout via Reuters

In a way, Peng and Ma's disappearances weren't surprising, as criticism of the country and its officials are effectively attacks on the Communist Party.

"The state protects its own at the end of the day," Roderic Wye, a former British Embassy official in Beijing, told Insider. "Accusing a senior state official is verging on, or is actually seen as, a serious crime against state security."

Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at London's School of African and Oriental Studies, agreed in his remarks.

"For a young female celebrity accusing a former PBSC of a sexual crime is just unacceptable, as it could set a precedent for others to be so challenged," he said, referring to the Communist Party's powerful Politburo Standing Committee.

How it ends

Peng is well known internationally, so, like with Ma and Fan, it is not surprising that she reemerged in public.

Her fame "makes it more difficult for her to be completely disappeared or dealt with. There will be people asking questions" Wye said in November.

"She would have to make some sort of fulsome retraction" to return to public life, he said.

Peng's remarks in late December, in which she denied accusing anyone of sexual assault, is just the sort of retraction that disappeared celebrities have made in the past. Another of those who apologized to win back their freedom is Fan.

After China made Fan repay 479 million yuan ($70 million) in 2019, she issued a groveling apology on the microblogging site Weibo in which she said she was "deeply ashamed." Then, in an interview with The New York Times, she practically thanked Beijing for vanishing her.

Since then, her social media posts have carried a nationalist tinge.

Fan Bingbing at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2018, two months before her disappearance.Eric Gaillard/Reuters

That said, some disappearances in China remain a mystery.

In August, the actress Zhao Wei vanished abruptly, and Chinese streaming sites pulled down her TV shows and films. Though no reason was given for her disappearance, Chinese state media — which can be considered an extension of the state — said she was "surrounded with lawsuits" and noted she was banned in 2017 from trading in China's securities markets for unspecified "market violations."

Another member of China's elite who vanished is Ren Zhiqiang, the former chairman of the property behemoth Huayuan.

In a March 2020 essay, Ren launched a thinly-veiled attack on Chinese President Xi Jinping, comparing him to "a clown who stripped naked and insisted on continuing being emperor." The Chinese Communist Party expelled Ren as a member in June and he was subsequently sentenced to 18 years in prison over corruption charges.

After Peng first made her allegation, the Chinese state broadcaster CGTN published an English-language email claiming to be from Peng, which retracted the allegation against Zhang and said she was safe.

The email has not been verified and, instead of alleviating people's fears, it only increased concerns for Peng's safety.

Steve Simon, the chairman of the Women's Tennis Association, said in a statement shortly after: "Her allegation of sexual assault must be respected, investigated with full transparency and without censorship."

"The voices of women need to be heard and respected, not censored nor dictated to."

GOOD NEWS

Wisconsin winter wolf hunt may not be held this season

Michael Hollan
Mon, December 20, 2021

There may not be a winter wolf hunt in Wisconsin this year.

Wolf hunting in Wisconsin is on hold after a judge issued an injunction last month. According to new reports, the court schedule reveals it’s unlikely a decision will be made before 2021 ends.

The state held a wolf hunt earlier this year after the gray wolf was removed from the endangered species list, Fox 6 reports. During that hunt, 218 wolves were harvested in the state.

Since then, however, a lawsuit has been filed by a coalition of animal advocacy groups claiming that a state law requiring the wolf should be invalidated.

MAINE SEES BEST DEER HUNT IN OVER 5 DECADES

A judge issued an injunction against the hunt, stating that while he believed the state law was constitutional, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had not created the necessary permanent regulations for the hunt. The injunction will reportedly remain in place until the DNR can show that it has updated and implemented regulations regarding quotas, licenses and a new management plan for population goals.

According to a new report from Public News Service, a decision on the injunction won’t be made until next spring. That would mean no wolf hunt would be held this winter.

Earlier this year, Fox News reported that gray wolves were officially removed from the federal Endangered Species List on Jan. 4, giving states the leeway to determine how to manage local populations. Wisconsin mandates that the DNR open a wolf hunt from early November to late February when the wolves are not listed as endangered or threatened.

At the time, hunting advocacy group Hunter Nation successfully sued the state to hold a wolf hunt. Prior to this year, the most recent wolf hunt in Wisconsin was in 2014.

Fox News' Janine Puhak contributed to this report.

Report claims Colorado's first wolf kill of livestock in more than 70 years

SHOWS HOW RARE WOLF ATTACKS ARE


Miles Blumhardt, Fort Collins Coloradoan
Tue, December 21, 2021

Colorado's first reported wolf kill of livestock in more than 70 years has state wildlife officials investigating the killing of a cow near Walden.

The Colorado Cattlemen’s Association stated in a Monday afternoon news release that a 500-pound heifer cow was confirmed to be killed by a wolf or wolves believed to be from a known pack living in the area.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesperson Rebecca Ferrell said the agency is aware of the report and is investigating the claim, which she said was received Sunday.

The kill was believed to have taken place Saturday night near the landowner's home and cattle facility, according to the cattlemen's association.

"If it is determined to be caused by the wolves that have naturally migrated into the state, we will compensate the landowner through our current game damage program,'' Ferrell said.

The Arvada-based Colorado Cattlemen's Association said in the release the kill was confirmed to be from wolves and that it was the first in the state in more than 70 years.

"On behalf of the livestock producer, who is a member of the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, as well as Colorado Parks and Wildlife, we ask that the public refrain from disturbing the area and individuals associated with this wolf attack,'' Steve Wooten, association president, said in the release.

Wolves in Rocky Mountain National Park?: Some believe it should be a release site

The pack of two adult males and six pups was confirmed by Chris Chirichetti II, an archery elk hunter who shot video of the pack north of Walden in September. He showed the video to Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff. The video was the first of wolf pups born in the state in 80 years.

"It doesn't surprise me at all because they were stalking cattle when I saw them,'' Chirichetti said Monday when informed of the kill. The traveling nurse working in Greeley shot his video in September and posted it on Facebook in October.

Wildlife officials had been keeping tabs on two adult wolves, including an adult male they captured via helicopter and tagged with a GPS collar in February in the area. It was with a collared female, and the two were later seen exhibiting denning behavior and in early June had pups. The pack is located just miles from the western border of Larimer County.

Other sightings of wolves have taken place in the area. A pack that was living in extreme northwest Colorado is no longer in the state and its existence is unknown, according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife has an existing fund that pays landowners for damages caused by wildlife, including predators like wolves, bears and mountain lions as well as elk, deer and moose.

Proposition 114, the ballot initiative that narrowly passed last year, requires the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to develop a plan to introduce gray wolves west of the Continental Divide, with wolves on the ground no later than the end of 2023.

The measure includes compensating livestock owners for confirmed kills by wolves.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is working on a wolf reintroduction plan through public open houses, stakeholder groups and wildlife expert meetings.

Wolves were recently delisted as endangered federally but still are designated as a state endangered animal and are protected under state law. Illegally killing a wolf can result in a fine and prison time.

The cattlemen's association said the kill is "unfortunate'' and "this wolf kill further brings to light issues that must be addressed'' by the state's wolf reintroduction plan.

It specifically mentioned a guaranteed funding source to fairly provide needed tools for prevention and compensation from wolf impacts.

"(We) strongly encourage the members of the Wolf Restoration and Management Plan working groups and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission to consider this wolf attack and the widespread impacts as a sentinel example of how livestock can be impacted by wolf introduction,'' the release read. 

KEEP YOUR CATTLE OFF FEDERAL LANDS (PARKLAND)  YOU GRAZE WITHOUT PAYMENT

Lynx reintroduction: Colorado's first predator brought back

Reporter Miles Blumhardt looks for stories that impact your life. Be it news, outdoors, sports — you name it, he wants to report it. Have a story idea? Contact him at milesblumhardt@coloradoan.com or on Twitter @MilesBlumhardt. Support his work and that of other Coloradoan journalists by purchasing a digital subscription today.

This article originally appeared on Fort Collins Coloradoan: Colorado's first wolf kill of livestock in 70 years reported

‘Why Did They Protect Betsy DeVos?’: Federal Marshals Deny Request for Security Detail to First Black U.S. Attorney In Massachusetts Despite Direct Death Threats

Niara Savage
Tue, December 21, 2021

The U.S. Marshals Service won’t provide a full-time security detail to the first Black U.S. attorney confirmed to that post in Massachusetts, leaving her without that federal protection although she’s receiving escalating death threats.

The Senate confirmed Rachael Rollins to the post earlier this month. During the confirmation, Republicans characterized Rollins as a pro-criminal prosecutor with an “unhinged personality.”

The Senate confirmed Rachael Rollins to the post earlier this month. During the confirmation, Republicans characterized Rollins as a pro-criminal prosecutor with an “unhinged personality. (Photo: WCVB/ YouTube screenshot)

Rollins previously refused to prosecute some minor offenses. Threats intensified after Republicans framed Rollins as soft on crime in her job as Suffolk County district attorney.

“You’ll probably die,” read one message sent to the Suffolk County District’s Attorney’s Office.

“SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE IS PLOTTING TO PUT ONE IN YOUR FACE OR HEAD!!!” read another.

Rollins turned over the threats she’s received to the U.S. Marshals Service, requesting a full security detail. But federal officials rejected the argument that the attorney is in serious danger, the Boston Globe reports.

People familiar with the situation told the Globe one of the people who sent a threatening message later apologized, and that officials concluded Rollins is at a low risk for becoming the target of violence.

Rollins has served as the Suffolk district attorney since 2019 and receives protection from a Boston police unit. She has not yet been sworn in as a U.S. attorney but is set to start the new job in January.

The Senate confirmed Rollins, who has led investigations in Boston into police misconduct and invalidated past drug convictions, on Dec. 8 by a vote of 51-50.

All Republicans voted against her confirmation, and Vice President Kamala Harris broke the tie.

The marshals’ handling of Rollins’ security concerns contrasts with what that the agency did for a Donald Trump Cabinet member. After protesters heckled now-former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos in February 2017 during her visit to a Washington middle school, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions granted her 24/7 protection from the marshals.

Betsy DeVos (Credit: United States Department of Education/Wiki)

Politico reported last year that DeVos’ security detail cost taxpayers $24 million over a four-year period.

At the time, officials defended the use of the tax dollars.

“Year after year, the press reports on the cost of the Secretary’s security detail,” Education Department spokesperson Angela Morabito said in a statement. “What goes unreported are the threats to the Secretary’s safety, which necessitate the security detail in the first place. The people who make the threats are at fault here, not the person receiving them.”

Rollins has previously highlighted the dangers of the kinds of threats Black women receive.

“A lot of people don’t recognize [that] as women and as women of color, and particularly as a Black woman, the level of racist, hate-filled death threats that we receive,” she told GBH’s Greater Boston.

On Twitter, users criticized federal officials’ decision not to provide security for Rollins after DeVos was granted a security detail.

One user wrote: “Rachael Rollins, the new US Attorney for MA has turned over emails to the Marshals Service that contained death threats on her life, including one that affirmed: “you’ll probably die.” The Service turned down her request for protection. Why did they protect Cruella Betsy DeVos?”

Another added, using the #protectblackwomen. “So DeVos got protection because she was heckled by some protesters but Rollins, who has received direct death threats, doesn’t get a second glance. Really? #protectblackwomen”

Another user was just plain confused, “Betsy deVos felt threatened by protestors and received 24/7 protection… is there something in Rollins’ background I missed that would preclude her from protection? Krav maga or ninja training??”

The U.S. Marshals Service actively protects about 40,000 federal employees.

Lay off Dr. Fauci, Gov. DeSantis. It’s not like he’s teaching critical race theory | Editorial



the Miami Herald Editorial Board
Mon, December 20, 2021

So, here’s what Florida’s fearless leader told his supporters in a campaign email on Monday: “Dr. Fauci is at it again, folks. He took to national TV — where he spends most of his time — to pledge support for a permanent mask mandate for air travel. What started as ‘15 days to slow the spread’ has now descended into permanent Faucism. For COVID authoritarians like Fauci, Biden and their Democratic cronies, these mandates are not about a virus but about them wielding power over others.

“We cannot allow our communities to become Faucian dystopias in which people’s freedoms are curtailed and their livelihoods destroyed. We must fight back.”

The “Faucism” gibe is an unsubtle reference to fascism, obviously. But if we’re talking about suppression of the opposition or dictatorial drift, we can look a lot closer to home.

In a recent essay, the Union of Concerned Scientists had this to say about Florida: “Scientists, researchers, and academics should never have to fear for the safety of their own career simply because they were doing their job of conducting research and making that research accessible to the public.”

The statement is addressing the muzzles that DeSantis & Co. have placed over the mouths of scientists and researchers at the University of Florida, “opting to censor scientists and bury COVID-19 data rather than use that data to protect people.”

At UF, researchers told a Faculty Senate committee that they were pressured to destroy COVID-19 data, blocked from accessing state data and told not to say anything unsavory about the governor.

Omicron, meanwhile, is making inroads in Florida, on a collision course with Christmas and New Year’s. How much damage omicron will cause is not yet known. But holiday revelers — and everyone else — know the drill after almost two long years, with just moments of respite: Masks, vaccination, boosters, distancing.

When it comes to COVID-19, Fauci talks truth. Florida’s governor, however, talks politics — with hardly a word about the tragedy of more than 62,000 dead from the virus in his state.

Myanmar rebel group calls for no-fly zone to protect civilians

Tue, December 21, 2021

MAE SOT, Thailand (Reuters) - Myanmar's oldest rebel force wants international help to establish a "no-fly zone" near the Thai border, after warning there was a danger of clashes with the army resulting in civilians being targeted by air strikes.

There has been an escalation in fighting recently between the army and the Karen National Union (KNU), prompting thousands of people to seek refuge in Thailand.

About 3,400 people have taken shelter in Thailand over recent days, Thai authorities said. Thousands more are stranded on the Myanmar side of the border, waiting to cross.

In a statement released this week, the KNU warned of a "high possibility" of military air strikes on civilians.

"These air strikes won't target military bases but civilian bases as in schools, hospitals, houses and villages," the head of the KNU's foreign affairs department, Saw Taw Nee, told Reuters, citing his experience from previous bouts of fighting.

A spokesman for Myanmar's military junta did not answer calls seeking comment.

The KNU urged the international community to identify a no-fly zone by seeking an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

Last month, the U.N. Security Council, in a rare statement that was agreed by its 15 members, expressed concern over violence across Myanmar and urged the military to exercise utmost restraint.

International efforts to end the conflict in Myanmar since a February coup have been limited to diplomatic initiatives and attempts to exert economic pressure through Western sanctions.

Since the military overthrew the civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) has said that more than 1,300 people have been killed by the security forces.

The military has said the figures from AAPP, a monitoring group cited by the United Nations, are exaggerated.

The KNU agreed to a ceasefire in 2012, ending an insurgency for self-determination that began soon after Myanmar gained independence in 1948, but its forces have been clashing with the army since the coup and it has allowed opponents of the coup to take shelter in territory it controls.

The latest fighting had been triggered by the army's attempts to arrest people in the Lay Kay Kaw area, said Saw Taw Nee.

"They came and checked on the town which we allow. However, they didn't keep their promise and arrested people which we totally don't accept," he said.

The KNU said three of its fighters and 15 government soldiers had been killed in the clashes. Reuters could not independently verify the account.

(Reporting by Reuters Staff; Editing by Ed Davies, Robert Birsel)

Mexicans and Central Americans in U.S. oppose the border wall



Russell Contreras
Tue, December 21, 2021
Data: Axios/Ipsos in partnership with Noticias Telemundo; Chart: Kavya Beheraj/Axios

Opposition among U.S. Latinos to walling off the U.S.-Mexico border is being driven by Mexican Americans and Central Americans, while Puerto Ricans are more ambivalent and a majority of Cuban Americans support the idea, according to the inaugural Axios-Ipsos Latino poll in partnership with Noticias Telemundo.

Why it matters: It's one striking example of the deep divisions among U.S. Latinos on a range of political and cultural issues that break down across geographic and generational lines.

The poll also found Latinos broadly support teaching about racism in school — but not if it's described as "critical race theory" — a trigger Republicans may seek to exploit in races around the country next year.

Driving the news: These are among the findings in the first installment of a national poll that examines the political, societal and cultural attitudes of a diverse population comprising nearly one in five Americans in the 2020 census — and about 13% of eligible U.S. voters.

COVID-19 and crime or gun violence were the top two concerns for U.S. Latinos, with immigration ranked behind climate change and inflation and supply chain issues.

By the numbers: Nearly three-fourths of Mexican Americans surveyed said they strongly or somewhat oppose the border wall. There are more than 38 million Mexican Americans in the U.S., about 62% of the Latino population.

72% of Central Americans in the U.S. also oppose the wall. In recent years, migrants fleeing violence and poverty in Central America have been the largest group seeking entry via the U.S.-Mexico border.

54% of Cuban Americans in the survey said they strongly or somewhat support a border wall or fence. Cuban Americans comprise about 2 million, or 3.2%, of Latinos in the country but hold disproportionate political power.

Nearly 45% of Puerto Ricans said they support a wall. Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth — whether they live in the 50 states or in the territory.

Between the lines: For decades, Central American and Mexican immigrants have faced violence along the U.S.-Mexico border from law enforcement agencies and see the wall as a symbol of discrimination.

They also been targeted for massive deportation operations in the U.S. that sometimes have wrongly caught up Mexican Americans.

Cuban Americans have had an easier path to the U.S. under preferential Cold War-era policies that allow migrants fleeing the socialist country to enter the U.S.

Overall, 58% of all Latinos surveyed said they opposed the border wall.

What they're saying: Cliff Young, president of Ipsos U.S. Public Affairs, said "proximity to the issue" is a major factor in how different groups of Latinos view the wall.

"You can think of proximity both in terms of distance and headspace," Young said. "The closer you are to the border the more salient border issues are. But it's also, 'Have I experienced it directly or indirectly?'"

Between the lines: Support for the wall is higher among Latino respondents the longer their families have lived in the U.S., said Ipsos pollster and senior vice president Chris Jackson.

The survey found support among 25% of first-generation Americans; 34% among the second-generation; and 43% for third-generation and higher.

But, but, but: The poll also found 68% of respondents support a path to U.S. citizenship for people in the country illegally.

Around 60% said they support allowing refugees fleeing crime and violence in Latin America to claim asylum in the U.S.

What we're watching: 69% of Latinos support public schools teaching about the history of slavery and racism.

But that drops to 39% when they're asked whether they support teaching critical race theory, highlighting the effect a conservative-led campaign that falsely claims CRT is in schools is having among Latinos.

Methodology: This Axios/Ipsos Latino Poll, in partnership with Noticias Telemundo, was conducted Dec. 2-14, 2021, by Ipsos' KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,064 Hispanic/Latino adults age 18 or older.

The margin of sampling error is ±3.8 percentage points at the 95% confidence level, for results based on the entire sample.

Idaho conservation group sues Forest Service, says logging, burning could harm bull trout

Nicole Blanchard
Tue, December 21, 2021

An Idaho environmental group has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service, claiming the federal agency’s plans in a Boise National Forest logging project could potentially damage habitat and wildlife, including a threatened fish species.

The Idaho Conservation League filed suit on Monday over the Sage Hen restoration project, which was proposed in 2020 and approved in April. The group argues that the Forest Service excluded the public from offering feedback on project specifics and rushed past an in-depth environmental impact study, opting instead for a less-rigorous environmental assessment. ICL called that “a highly unusual move for such a large and transformative project.”

The Sage Hen project includes prescribed burning, commercial logging and road-building, all part of an effort to restore forestland damaged by tussock moths, mistletoe and other invasive pests and weeds. The project covers 68,000 acres surrounding Sage Hen Reservoir, northwest of Smiths Ferry.

When the project began, the Forest Service said logging and burning treatments would be “conditions-based,” meaning the agency would determine the location and extent of those operations when the project was underway. The Forest Service set maximum acreages for each treatment, but the Idaho Conservation League said that gives the agency “a blank check” to fill in without public input or environmental assessments.

“As a result, important details of the project are largely unknown, and the true extent of its adverse environmental impacts are highly uncertain,” ICL wrote in its lawsuit.

The environmental group said it has concerns that logging, burning and road-building may disturb wildlife and native plants, as well as bull trout. ICL argues that the population of bull trout in the Squaw Creek area is isolated and may be decreasing, putting the fish — which are protected as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act — at risk if the project disturbs their watershed.

You asked: Why can’t I harvest bull trout when they’re plentiful in Idaho?

The Idaho Conservation League has asked the U.S. District Court of Idaho to void the approval of the Sage Hen restoration project and order the Forest Service to complete an environmental impact study to determine the effects of its proposed treatments.

It’s not the first time environmental groups have pushed back against the project. The Idaho Conservation League and the Boise Forest Coalition, of which ICL is a member, filed objections to the project in December 2020, claiming the project didn’t disclose necessary details and was not based on an environmental impact study. Wildlands Defense, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Yellowstone to Uintas Connection and Native Ecosystems Council filed a lawsuit last month to stop the project, citing concerns similar to the Idaho Conservation League’s.

Randy Fox, West Central Idaho conservation associate for ICL, said in the group’s news release that the Conservation League is not opposed to the project. The group has collaborated with the Forest Service to help develop the project but wants to see more diligence to ensure watersheds and wildlife aren’t harmed by the forest restoration.

“Make no mistake, the Idaho Conservation League wants the Forest Service to succeed,” Fox said. “We have invested years in this project. But we need to correct the course.”

The American Forest Resource Council, a Portland, Oregon-based trade association that represents timber purchasers, reached out to the Idaho Statesman in support of the Sage Hen project. A spokesman for the council, which was also involved in developing the project, said the Forest Service heeded public comments and pared down road construction plans and nearly 2,000 acres of proposed timber harvest.

“At a time when our public land managers are calling for landscape scale treatments to improve the health of our national forests, the Sage Hen project is an example of the work that needs to be done to keep our public lands healthy and accessible for the public,” the association said in a statement.

The Statesman has reached out to the Forest Service for comment.

LEGAL COMPLAINT PDF 
Case 1:21-cv-00504-CWD Document 1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 40

VOTE BUYING
Federal watchdog: Trump's USDA overpaid corn farmers by $3B

In this July 11, 2018, file photo, a field of corn grows in front of an old windmill in Pacific Junction, Iowa. The Trump administration overpaid corn farmers by about $3 billion in federal aid in 2019 and farmers in the South were paid more for the same crops than those elsewhere in the country, a federal watchdog agency has found. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File )

DAVID PITT
Tue, December 21, 2021


DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Trump administration overpaid corn farmers by about $3 billion in federal aid in 2019 and farmers in the South were paid more for the same crops than those elsewhere in the country, a federal watchdog agency has found.

The Government Accountability Office said in a report released Monday that international disputes resulting from tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump hurt farmers but that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's county-by-county methodology for computing the extent of damage was flawed, leading to overpayment and inconsistent compensation.

“Though corn yields are higher in the Midwest and West, corn producers received an estimated average of $69 per acre in the South, $61 in the Midwest, $34 in the Northeast, and $29 in the West,” the report said.

GAO also estimated that payments to corn producers were approximately $3 billion more than USDA’s estimate of trade damage to corn, while payments to soybeans, sorghum, and cotton producers were lower than their estimated trade damages.

National Corn Growers Association CEO Jon Doggett said the USDA’s higher compensation for corn farmers in 2019 included items the GAO did not consider in its analysis, including the trade damage value for corn ethanol and a high protein livestock feed byproduct of ethanol production.

“Both 2018 and 2019 were terrible years for farmers who experienced net losses due to decisions in Washington and adverse weather conditions. In fact, farmers suffered a $6.3 billion loss in 2018 alone during that time because of the tariffs.”

The GAO report was requested by the Senate Agriculture Committee chaired by Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow.

“This report confirms that the Trump USDA picked winners and losers in their trade aid programs and left everyone else behind," Stabenow said in a statement. “Making larger payments to farmers in the South than farmers in the Midwest or elsewhere, regardless of whether those farmers actually experienced a larger loss, undermines our future ability to support farmers when real disasters occur.”

GAO said it audited the UDSA's Market Facilitation Program.

GAO recommended that the USDA Office of the Chief Economist revise its internal review process to ensure transparency of its documentation and that the agency conduct a review to ensure proper baseline methods are used in analysis.

Dr. Seth Meyer, the USDA chief economist, responded to the report in an Oct. 21 letter. He said the USDA analysis was based on a widely accepted trade model and methodology that the USDA’s Office of Inspector General found to be reasonable, and was applied consistently across a range of commodities for the 2018 and 2019 trade mitigation packages.

He said the USDA Office of the Chief Economist did not make the policy decision, and it provided options to policy makers.

“The policy decisions to select between a variety of alternatives that GAO has flagged as problematic were made by senior USDA leaders under the previous administration and not OCE,” he said.

Trump imposed higher tariffs on certain products from China, Europe, Canada and other key trading partners in 2018. China, Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Turkey, and India responded with tariffs targeting U.S. products, including agricultural commodities. In 2018 and 2019, many U.S. agricultural exports declined and the Trump administration poured money into support for farmers including the Market Facilitation Program that was the subject of the GAO audit.

Corn, cotton, sorghum, soybean and wheat farmers were paid more than $21.7 billion in 2018 and 2019. Dairy and hog farmers were paid more than $900 million, and specialty crops including tree nuts, cherries, cranberries, ginseng and table grapes were paid $346 million.

Before he lost the November 2020 election, Trump made it clear he was courting farmers' votes with federal aid. In a late October 2020 campaign appearance in Omaha, Nebraska, Trump said he believed farmers were better off getting government payments than relying solely on their farming receipts.

In 2019, one-third of U.S. farm income came from direct government payments and last year it was nearly 40% of their income.

Some farm groups questioned the way the federal money was being distributed to commodity and livestock farmers.